Members are requested to review the below post and offer comments as it shall be included in a separate sheet in my application for licence to the DM. I am emphasising that it is my right to own and keep in possession a defensive mechanism. Hope to get your views, observations and comments in the light of the prevailing laws: Thanks, Karan

A five member Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court of India has recently held that the “right to die with dignity” is an inalienable part of the “Right to Life with dignity” guaranteed by the Fundamental Rights under Article 21 of the Constitution and enforceable against the State. Now, that being my right – that I can choose not to live and die a dignified life without sufferings under my inalienable right, I can also choose to “live a dignified life” under the “Right to Life with dignity”. The source of these guaranteed and inalienable rights are Article 21 of the Constitution that can be enforced against the State. In other words, the State has no right to restraint me as I exercise and enjoy these rights, except that the Parliament has the competence to regulate these rights for compelling State interest. Living in fear is not a dignified life and in exercise of my inalienable right to a dignified life, I may bear arms in my person so that I may live without fear, exactly as I decide to order the removal of any life-support systems to die without pain or sufferings and die a dignified life. Thus, it is conclusively established that the right to keep and bear arms is my inalienable and Fundamental Right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The State is only a Regulatory or Controlling Agency which has no right to interfere in the exercise of my rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India without a constitutional amendment.

Members are requested to review the below post and offer comments as it shall be included in a separate sheet in my application for licence to the DM. I am emphasising that it is my right to own and keep in possession a defensive mechanism. Hope to get your views, observations and comments in the light of the prevailing laws: Thanks, Karan

A five member Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court of India has recently held that the “right to die with dignity” is an inalienable part of the “Right to Life with dignity” guaranteed by the Fundamental Rights under Article 21 of the Constitution and enforceable against the State. Now, that being my right – that I can choose not to live and die a dignified life without sufferings under my inalienable right, I can also choose to “live a dignified life” under the “Right to Life with dignity”. The source of these guaranteed and inalienable rights are Article 21 of the Constitution that can be enforced against the State. In other words, the State has no right to restraint me as I exercise and enjoy these rights, except that the Parliament has the competence to regulate these rights for compelling State interest. Living in fear is not a dignified life and in exercise of my inalienable right to a dignified life, I may bear arms in my person so that I may live without fear, exactly as I decide to order the removal of any life-support systems to die without pain or sufferings and die a dignified life. Thus, it is conclusively established that the right to keep and bear arms is my inalienable and Fundamental Right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The State is only a Regulatory or Controlling Agency which has no right to interfere in the exercise of my rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India without a constitutional amendment.

Try to convinced the officials. In india they make rules "what to approve, what to not". No PM or President can change that.

pkaran wrote:Members are requested to review the below post and offer comments as it shall be included in a separate sheet in my application for licence to the DM. I am emphasising that it is my right to own and keep in possession a defensive mechanism. Hope to get your views, observations and comments in the light of the prevailing laws: Thanks, Karan

Your citation of Supreme Court judgment is fine. But the District Magistrate is just a small cog in the wheel of the system. If your goal is only to somehow get a "license" and that is the end in itself for you, then please do not read any further. But if you think that license requirement in itself is unjustified, and feel this matter needs to pursued in High Court or Supreme Court, then you may read further below -

My main logic or reasoning is the following:

(1) Arms are fundamental natural human rights recognized by the Constitution. It can be ascertained by reading Articles 13, 14, 17, 19(1)(b), 21, 25(1), Explanation I in Article 25, 26, 27, 29(1) and 300A of the Constitution all read together. Because of right to equality, the State is also equally enjoying right to keep and bear arms.

(2) Article 19(1)(b) and Explanation I of Article 25 are explicitly acknowledging fundamental right to keep and bear arms. Article 19(1)(b) and 25 are flowing from Article 21. It means right to keep and bear arms is also embedded in Article 21. While interpreting right of self defense in Article 21, Supreme Court has held consistently in catena of judgments beginning from Vidhya Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1971) 3 SCC 244 that

1. Right of self defense is a very valuable right2. Right of self defense serves a social purpose3. Right of self defense should not be construed narrowly

(3) It also means every legislation that in any way has implications with the right of self defense, like Arms Act 1959, it's Arms Rules and Notifications need to pass the above test laid down by Supreme Court. In other words the construction and interpretation of Arms Act 1959 and connected legislation be beneficial and harmonious in favor of Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

(4) Arms Act 1959 has been enacted by Parliament to give effect to this right by following Article 35 of the Constitution. Reasonable restrictions on right to keep and bear arms are already there in the form of Sections 7, 8 and 9 of Arms Act 1959.

(5) Constitution is not an exhaustive document. It is an illustrative document. It is illustrating what is embedded in it. Also all Articles of the Constitution are in agreement with each other and at equal footing. Article 25 of the Constitution is illustrating what boundaries exist between fundamental rights under Part III and the State, and are embedded in them. Thus it also means Article 19(1)(b) and 21 fully respect Article 25 and thus similar boundaries between them and State holds good for them too. Part III of the Constitution tells that Parliament's competence to bring under licensing of fundamental rights including arms is limited to commercial aspects related to fundamental rights. It is incompetent to bring non commercial/ personal/ private aspects of fundamental rights under licensing. Insight into this fact is given by Article 25 of the Constitution. Article 25 is part of human life and liberty flowing from Article 21. Reading of Article 25 tells me that -

(a) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of Part III, the State has no power to legislate or prescribe about fundamental human rights, that also includes arms.

(b) So long fundamental human rights, that also includes arms, are not any economic, financial, political or other secular activity, regulating or restricting them is not within legislative or prescriptive competence or powers of the State.

(c) Arms are fundamental human right under Article 21 can be ascertained by reading Explanation I of Article 25. Indian Constitution like the American Constitution is based on the same British Common Law. The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution recognizes Right to Keep and Bear Arms as human right, that is why it says "People's Right to Keep and Bear Arms"(not Citizen's Right to Keep and Bear Arms). Similarly Article 21 recognizes Right to Keep and Bear Arms as human right, that is why Explanation I in Article 25 recognizes Right to Keep and Bear Arms as a human right.

(6) Similarly, Article 27 further explicitly confirms that State lacks any competence to tax by licensing or without licensing, non commercial aspects of fundamental rights, that also includes arms.

(7) This view is further confirmed by reading of Part XIII of the Constitution. Licensing authorities under Arms Act 1959 have been created from powers under Article 307 read along with Article 265 for purpose of taxing via licensing and regulating “trade, commerce and intercourse” i.e. commercial activity related to arms within India. Anything that is not part of commercial activity under Part XIII of the Constitution but is a fundamental right protected by Articles 13, 14, 17, 19(1)(b), 21, 25(1), Explanation I in Article 25, 26, 27, 29(1) and 300A of the Constitution read together, the licensing authorities have no competence or powers of taxing by licensing under Arms Act 1959. Legislative competence of Parliament for enacting Arms Act 1959 come from combined reading of Articles 35, 246 under Part XI of the Constitution for relations between the Union and the States read with entry numbers 5, 7, 41, 42, 93, 94, 96 of List I —Union List of the Seventh Schedule and Articles 302, 304, 305, 307 under Part XIII for regulating only “trade, commerce and intercourse” i.e. only commercial activity related with right to keep and bear arms within the territory of India.

(8) Since the acquisition or transfer of arms and ammunition includes non commercial/ private acquisition, possession or transfer, that is why their meaning in Sections 2(1)(a)&(k) of Arms Act 1959 includes borrowing, or accepting as a gift or lending, giving and parting with possession. Borrowing, or accepting as a gift or lending, giving and parting with possession are self evidently non commercial transactions. This shows that besides dealing with commercial acquisition, possession or transfer, Arms Act 1959 also recognizes non commercial or private acquisition, possession or transfer, which are beyond the licensing competence or purview of the State.

(9) This view is further confirmed by reading the second para of Sections 3(1) of Arms Act 1959 that the commercial license holder, as owner of the property i.e. firearm, has inherent personal/ private right to be a licensing authority to

(i) issue implicit oral non commercial license to possess for carry or use of his firearm or ammunition within his presence or property, leading to enjoyment by the licensee of his inherent non commercial human right to keep, bear or use arms.

Or

(ii) issue explicit written non commercial license to possess for carry or use his firearm or ammunition outside his presence or property, leading to enjoyment by the licensee of his inherent non commercial human right to keep, bear or use arms.

(10) This view is further confirmed by reading of Sections 5(2), 10(1)(a) of Arms Act 1959 that State is incompetent to bring under licensing of non commercial aspects related to right to keep and bear arms, like non commercial sale, purchase, import, export.

(11) This view is further confirmed by reading of Section 39 of Arms Act 1959, permission is required from district magistrate as a procedural safeguard to ensure no prosecution is raised under Section 3 of Arms Act 1959, to include among other things to also include, for any non commercial possession of firearms or ammunition.

(12) Similarly since the right to keep and bears arms is anyways a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution, that is why under the Section 41 of Arms Act 1959, the Central Government can exempt any person or class of persons from requiring a license for the right of commercial possession of firearms in public interest.

(13) Similarly since the right to keep and bears arms is anyways a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution, and Parliament lacks any competence to bring non commercial possession of firearms under licensing, that is exactly there is provision under Section 42 of Arms Act 1959 to conduct a census within the four walls of Census Act 1948. Otherwise(if all firearms can only be possessed under licenses and exemption certificates, like those for Coorgs) the question of conducting census does not arise.

(14) This view(lack of States competence to tax or license non commercial possession) is further confirmed by combined reading of Section 45(c) of Arms Act 1959, Rule 2(24), Rules 9(4)(5)(6), Rule 57 of Explosives Rules 2008 are not a result of some mistake of drafter or loophole that slipped into the law. They have been purposefully put in because it clearly means since the right to keep and bears arms is anyways a fundamental right protected by Articles 13, 14, 17, 19(1)(b), 21, 25(1), Explanation I in Article 25, 26, 27, 29(1) and 300A of the Constitution read together, and thus Parliament lacks any competence to bring non commercial/ private possession of firearms under licensing, the same is flowing into the Section 45(c) of Arms Act 1959, Rule 2(24), Rules 9(4)(5)(6), Rule 57 of Explosives Rules 2008. In other words the combined reading of Section 45(c) of Arms Act 1959, Rule 2(24), Rules 9(4)(5)(6), Rule 57 of Explosives Rules 2008 is a very brief manifestation of non commercial/ private fundamental right to possession of firearms without licensing. The enhanced protection to citizens flowing from Article 19(1)(b) in comparison to persons is also embedded in them.

Following is what Section 45(c) of Arms Act 1959 says:

"45. Act not to apply in certain cases.

Nothing in this Act shall apply to-- c) any weapon of an obsolete pattern or of antiquarian value or in disrepair which is not capable of being used as a Firearm either or without repair;"

It means that the Arms Act 1959 does not apply, if the weapon falls in any one or more of the following three categories:

1) any weapon of an obsolete pattern

Or

2) of antiquarian value

Or

3) in disrepair which is not capable of being used as a Firearm either or without repair;

As a corollary to the above, one may manufacture, sell, buy or possess matchlocks, flintlocks or similar firearms of "obsolete pattern" without any license under the Arms Act 1959. The cap and ball black powder revolver would also fall in the category of "any weapon of an obsolete pattern".

Rule (9)(6) of Explosives Rules 2008 says:

"Rule 9. No licence needed in certain cases.— Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 7, no licence shall be necessary for the following cases, namely :—

(6) possession by any person for his own private use and not for sale of gunpowder not exceeding five kilograms and fifty metres of safety fuse in any State other than Bihar, Kerala, Tamilnadu and West Bengal and of small arm nitro-compound not exceeding five kilograms except in the State of Kerala;" So one may legally possess without license under the Explosives Rules 2008, gunpowder and small arm nitro-compound each not exceeding five kilograms.

Going by the Section 45(c) of Arms Act 1959 and Rule (9)(6) of Explosives Rules 2008, one can legally possess without license, weapon/s of obsolete pattern along with gunpowder and small arm nitro-compound each not exceeding five kilograms for target practice, shooting sports as well as self defence.

For deciding if a weapon is of an antiquarian value, The Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972(available at http://asi.nic.in/pdf_data/8.pdf ) defines what is an antiquity. Any weapon that is not less than one hundred years is an antiquity and thus not require license, since it is not covered under Arms Act 1959 due to Section 45(c). You have to contact the nearest office of Archaeological Survey of India to register it as antique under The Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972.

(15) Article 358(1) makes it clear that State is clearly incompetent to derogate or violate the human right of self or private defense or it's most effective and modern means directly or indirectly under any color or pretext even under conditions of emergency. This view is further confirmed by Article 359(1)that even under conditions of emergency, State is clearly incompetent to derogate or violate the human right of self or private defense or it's most effective and modern means flowing from Article 21, directly or indirectly under any color or pretext, even under conditions of emergency. Article 359(1) also clarifies that even the other rights under Part III cannot be suspended, only the remedial enforcement of such rights may be temporarily suspended.

(16) The Indian Constitution and the American Constitution is based on British Common Law. Part III of Indian Constitution has been lifted from US Bill of Rights. US Supreme Court in DeShaney vs Winnebago County, 1989 and in many more judgments, has repeatedly emphasized that "the Constitution does not impose a duty on state and local governments to protect the citizens from criminal harm". Similarly the Indian Constitution does not impose a duty on State or Central government to protect from criminal harm, that is why citizens cannot claim compensation of failure of State duty to protect for suffering from violent crime. Following may also be read http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts ... 182966.asp

The Indian State(police etc.) protects the law(the public at large) under public duty doctrine and not individuals. Under public duty doctrine, the police exists to patrol the streets and to apprehend criminals after the crime is committed and do not exist to protect individuals. That is why the Indian police is not criminally liable of neglecting duty of protecting individuals. That is why, the State through it's Parliament has officially acknowledged, on behalf of the Constitution, that it is not always possible or sufficient to provide security by government in the Section 2(f) of Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005. That is why it says the following:

"private security" means security provided by a person, other than a public servant, to protect or guard any person or property or both and includes provision of armoured car service;"

Section 2(f) is saying the above because the "private security" also includes the inherent right to private security provided by person to himself, his family and society. The right of "private defense" as mentioned from Sections 96 to 106 IPC is also a part of the right of "private security".

Similarly, the Section 2(g) of Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 tells what is a private security agency. It says the following:

"private security agency" means a person or body of persons other than a government agency, department or organisation engaged in the business of providing private security services including training to private security guards or their supervisor or providing private security guards to any industrial or business undertaking or a company or any other person or property;"

Section 2(g) is saying the above because the private security agency includes the inherent right to free agency in every person to provide private security to himself, his family and society.

Similarly the Section 2(h) of Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 tells what is a private security guard. It says the following:

"private security guard" means a person providing private security with or without arms to another person or property or both and includes a supervisor;"

Section 2(h) is saying the above because every person has inherent right be an armed private security guard to himself, his family and society.

(17) Nine judge Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court of India, civil original jurisdiction, Writ Petition (civil) No 494 Of 2012, Justice K S Puttaswamy (retd.), and Anr. ..petitioners Vs. Union Of India And Ors. ..respondents, has agreed that right to personal security inter alia the right to keep and bear arms is a human right. The relevant extract is quoted below:

"91. In Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v. S.S. Shukla, (1976) 2 SCC 521, a Constitution Bench of this Court arrived at the conclusion (by majority) that Article 21 is the sole repository of all rights to life and personal liberty, and, when suspended, takes away those rights altogether.

A remarkable dissent was that of Khanna,J. 12

The learned Judge held: [.............]Many modern Constitutions incorporate certain fundamental rights, including the one relating to personal freedom.

According to Blackstone, the absolute rights of Englishmen were the rights of personal security, personal liberty and private property . The American Declaration of Independence (1776) states that all men are created equal, and among their inalienable rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Second Amendment to the US Constitution refers inter alia to security of person, [..............]

92. According to us this is a correct enunciation of the law for the following reasons:

(i) It is clear that the international covenants and declarations to which India was a party, namely, the 1948 Declaration and the 1966 Covenant both spoke of the right to life and liberty as being “inalienable”. Given the fact that this has to be read as being part of Article 21 by virtue of the judgments referred to supra, it is clear that Article 21 would, therefore, not be the sole repository of these human rights but only reflect the fact that they were “inalienable”; that they inhere in every human being by virtue of the person being a human being;

(ii) Secondly, developments after this judgment have also made it clear that the majority judgments are no longer good law and that Khanna, J.’s dissent is the correct version of the law. Section 2(1)(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 recognises that the right to life, liberty, equality and dignity referable to international covenants and enforceable by Courts in India are “human rights”. And international covenants expressly state that these rights are ‘inalienable’ as they inhere in persons because they are human beings. In I.R. Coelho (supra), this Court noticed in paragraph 29 that, “The decision in ADM Jabalpur, (1976) 2 SCC 521, about the restrictive reading of the right to life and liberty stood impliedly overruled by various subsequent decisions.”, and expressly held that these rights are natural rights that inhere in human beings thus:-[................]"

In the above judgment, the nine judge Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court has clearly confirmed and laid down the law that the right to personal security, personal liberty and private property are inalienable human rights. The gun provides personal security and is also a private property. And the Article 141 of the Constitution clearly says the following:

"The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India."

Questions to the forum for discussion and views - Self defense and by extension right to keep and bear arms is a natural human right. This right is embedded in various Articles of the Constitution. I don't think there is any controversy about this fact. That is why Articles 19(1)(b) and Explanation I in Article 25 are clearly acknowledging this inherent right. That is why when read with Article 14, the State is also enjoying this right to keep and bear arms. Parliament has the competence to regulate the "activity" related to these rights for compelling State interest. Reasonable restrictions on right to keep and bear arms are already there in the form of Sections 7, 8 and 9 of Arms Act 1959. Arms Act 1959 has been enacted by Parliament to give effect to this right to keep and bear arms by following Article 35 of the Constitution. But does Parliament have competence to reduce non commercial aspect/ activity of these rights to subject of licensing and taxation? Articles 25 and 27 are clearly telling non commercial aspects of rights cannot be taxed by license or by without licensing. Licensing authorities have been created from powers under Article 307 read with Article 265 to regulate “trade, commerce and intercourse”. Thus they lack jurisdiction to license or tax anything that is not within realm of “trade, commerce and intercourse”. Therefore I am unable to see any Parliamentary competence to reduce non commercial aspects of this right like personal or private possession of firearms to be the subject of license or tax under license.

I re-frame the question, when the Constitution is clearly saying the State lacks jurisdiction on non commercial activity related with the rights, then how can non commercial/ private/ personal activity of possession etc. of firearm be under taxation and licensing? If you note, various provisions of Arms Act 1959 and Explosives Rules 2008 have also acknowledged this lack of jurisdiction of State. Such taxation and licensing of a right is clearly against the Constitution. If not, then from where is the State getting competence or jurisdiction for taxation and licensing of non commercial/ private/ personal activity related to rights?

The links mentioned in another post can also be of interest to you, click here

Nicely researched. Surely the licencing of arms in india reminds me of kant's conundrum posed in his observations on justice........in a story he recounts.....for the majority to be happy in the city..a child needs to be chained in the basement of a particular house......he then goes on to argue .....should the child be chained in the basement so that the majority in the city can be happy?,.....similarly.....should the arms licence be the sine qua non for the possession of a weapon?

Hi Goodboy, The article posted by you above, is really enlighting and contains all the essential arsenal required for the battle. However, knowing all these facts, we still lack the proper channel to take this further. I have been out of this forum for last couple of years due to personal and work issues. but before leaving i had seen Nagri been formed and was suppose to take up this in a more professional and organised manner. Coz i still think, this battle cannot be fought by a lone soldier.

Your citation of Supreme Court judgment is fine. But the District Magistrate is just a small cog in the wheel of the system. If your goal is only to somehow get a "license" and that is the end in itself for you, then please do not read any further.

As GBM mentions. If your sole purpose is to get arms license then file a writ (mandamus) in your state High Court, any lawyer will be able to do that.

If you have plans to do greater good then plan well with an experienced lawyer who understands the process of Bureaucracy mukt arms license in real terms.

You and your lawyer have to plan plan well, with your pleadings documents with your case study (mentioned in your post and GBM's) your writ may end up becoming a PIL. A good plan, work and case needs to justify for this.

You can approach Senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan and other top advocates and retired Judges via Center for Public Interest Litigation NGO.

As already explained in previous post, I am unable to see any jurisdiction of State to reduce right of private or personal possession of firearm as a matter of license. I am able to see a Constitutional barrier in Part III of the Constitution. There are two components to be noted in Arms Act 1959, first is "reasonable restrictions" in Sections 8 and 9 of Arms Act 1959. I have no problem with these "reasonable restrictions". Second component is the taxation via license(license fee). If you are not hurting Sections 8 and 9 of Arms Act 1959 and have paid license tax/fees, you are handed over a "license".

If you are not hurting Sections 8 and 9 of Arms Act 1959, but do not have "license"(read not paid license tax)then why is the State sending you to jail for not having "license"? For enforcing "reasonable restrictions" of Sections 8 and 9 of Arms Act 1959, the State can create a barrier against those hurting Sections 8 and 9 of Arms Act 1959, at the point of commercial sale(licensed arms dealers). I am unable to see jurisdiction of State beyond point of commercial sale(licensed arms dealers). What legal purpose is being served by taxing those who are not hurting Sections 8 and 9 of Arms Act 1959 and sending them to jail, if they have not paid license tax? This is gross injustice, subversion of rule of law and the Constitution in broad daylight. Isn't it?

Someone in post of another thread here, mentioned that what I have posted in this thread "legal terms went over my head". Trying to explain the matter as simple as possible, so that everyone can understand. The gist of the matter is -

1. Consistency in law is the cardinal principle of law.

2. There is a wall of separation between individual rights and jurisdiction of State in Part III of the Constitution.

3. Because of the above two reasons, exceptions(lack of State jurisdiction) are implicitly or explicitly mentioned in Sections 2(1)(a)&(k), 5(2), 10(1)(a), 39, 41, 42, 45(c) of Arms Act 1959, Rule 2(24), Rules 9(4)(5)(6), Rule 57 of Explosives Rules 2008. Similar exception(lack of State jurisdiction) is supposed to exist in Sections 3 and 4 of Arms Act 1959. For clarifying this fact, the High Courts and Supreme Court have an important role to play.

pkaran wrote:Members are requested to review the below post and offer comments as it shall be included in a separate sheet in my application for licence to the DM. I am emphasising that it is my right to own and keep in possession a defensive mechanism. Hope to get your views, observations and comments in the light of the prevailing laws: Thanks, Karan

Your citation of Supreme Court judgment is fine. But the District Magistrate is just a small cog in the wheel of the system. If your goal is only to somehow get a "license" and that is the end in itself for you, then please do not read any further. But if you think that license requirement in itself is unjustified, and feel this matter needs to pursued in High Court or Supreme Court, then you may read further below -

My main logic or reasoning is the following:

(1) Arms are fundamental natural human rights recognized by the Constitution. It can be ascertained by reading Articles 13, 14, 17, 19(1)(b), 21, 25(1), Explanation I in Article 25, 26, 27, 29(1) and 300A of the Constitution all read together. Because of right to equality, the State is also equally enjoying right to keep and bear arms.

(2) Article 19(1)(b) and Explanation I of Article 25 are explicitly acknowledging fundamental right to keep and bear arms. Article 19(1)(b) and 25 are flowing from Article 21. It means right to keep and bear arms is also embedded in Article 21. While interpreting right of self defense in Article 21, Supreme Court has held consistently in catena of judgments beginning from Vidhya Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1971) 3 SCC 244 that

1. Right of self defense is a very valuable right2. Right of self defense serves a social purpose3. Right of self defense should not be construed narrowly

(3) It also means every legislation that in any way has implications with the right of self defense, like Arms Act 1959, it's Arms Rules and Notifications need to pass the above test laid down by Supreme Court. In other words the construction and interpretation of Arms Act 1959 and connected legislation be beneficial and harmonious in favor of Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

(4) Arms Act 1959 has been enacted by Parliament to give effect to this right by following Article 35 of the Constitution. Reasonable restrictions on right to keep and bear arms are already there in the form of Sections 7, 8 and 9 of Arms Act 1959.

(5) Constitution is not an exhaustive document. It is an illustrative document. It is illustrating what is embedded in it. Also all Articles of the Constitution are in agreement with each other and at equal footing. Article 25 of the Constitution is illustrating what boundaries exist between fundamental rights under Part III and the State, and are embedded in them. Thus it also means Article 19(1)(b) and 21 fully respect Article 25 and thus similar boundaries between them and State holds good for them too. Part III of the Constitution tells that Parliament's competence to bring under licensing of fundamental rights including arms is limited to commercial aspects related to fundamental rights. It is incompetent to bring non commercial/ personal/ private aspects of fundamental rights under licensing. Insight into this fact is given by Article 25 of the Constitution. Article 25 is part of human life and liberty flowing from Article 21. Reading of Article 25 tells me that -

(a) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of Part III, the State has no power to legislate or prescribe about fundamental human rights, that also includes arms.

(b) So long fundamental human rights, that also includes arms, are not any economic, financial, political or other secular activity, regulating or restricting them is not within legislative or prescriptive competence or powers of the State.

(c) Arms are fundamental human right under Article 21 can be ascertained by reading Explanation I of Article 25. Indian Constitution like the American Constitution is based on the same British Common Law. The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution recognizes Right to Keep and Bear Arms as human right, that is why it says "People's Right to Keep and Bear Arms"(not Citizen's Right to Keep and Bear Arms). Similarly Article 21 recognizes Right to Keep and Bear Arms as human right, that is why Explanation I in Article 25 recognizes Right to Keep and Bear Arms as a human right.

(6) Similarly, Article 27 further explicitly confirms that State lacks any competence to tax by licensing or without licensing, non commercial aspects of fundamental rights, that also includes arms.

(7) This view is further confirmed by reading of Part XIII of the Constitution. Licensing authorities under Arms Act 1959 have been created from powers under Article 307 read along with Article 265 for purpose of taxing via licensing and regulating “trade, commerce and intercourse” i.e. commercial activity related to arms within India. Anything that is not part of commercial activity under Part XIII of the Constitution but is a fundamental right protected by Articles 13, 14, 17, 19(1)(b), 21, 25(1), Explanation I in Article 25, 26, 27, 29(1) and 300A of the Constitution read together, the licensing authorities have no competence or powers of taxing by licensing under Arms Act 1959. Legislative competence of Parliament for enacting Arms Act 1959 come from combined reading of Articles 35, 246 under Part XI of the Constitution for relations between the Union and the States read with entry numbers 5, 7, 41, 42, 93, 94, 96 of List I —Union List of the Seventh Schedule and Articles 302, 304, 305, 307 under Part XIII for regulating only “trade, commerce and intercourse” i.e. only commercial activity related with right to keep and bear arms within the territory of India.

(8) Since the acquisition or transfer of arms and ammunition includes non commercial/ private acquisition, possession or transfer, that is why their meaning in Sections 2(1)(a)&(k) of Arms Act 1959 includes borrowing, or accepting as a gift or lending, giving and parting with possession. Borrowing, or accepting as a gift or lending, giving and parting with possession are self evidently non commercial transactions. This shows that besides dealing with commercial acquisition, possession or transfer, Arms Act 1959 also recognizes non commercial or private acquisition, possession or transfer, which are beyond the licensing competence or purview of the State.

(9) This view is further confirmed by reading the second para of Sections 3(1) of Arms Act 1959 that the commercial license holder, as owner of the property i.e. firearm, has inherent personal/ private right to be a licensing authority to

(i) issue implicit oral non commercial license to possess for carry or use of his firearm or ammunition within his presence or property, leading to enjoyment by the licensee of his inherent non commercial human right to keep, bear or use arms.

Or

(ii) issue explicit written non commercial license to possess for carry or use his firearm or ammunition outside his presence or property, leading to enjoyment by the licensee of his inherent non commercial human right to keep, bear or use arms.

(10) This view is further confirmed by reading of Sections 5(2), 10(1)(a) of Arms Act 1959 that State is incompetent to bring under licensing of non commercial aspects related to right to keep and bear arms, like non commercial sale, purchase, import, export.

(11) This view is further confirmed by reading of Section 39 of Arms Act 1959, permission is required from district magistrate as a procedural safeguard to ensure no prosecution is raised under Section 3 of Arms Act 1959, to include among other things to also include, for any non commercial possession of firearms or ammunition.

(12) Similarly since the right to keep and bears arms is anyways a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution, that is why under the Section 41 of Arms Act 1959, the Central Government can exempt any person or class of persons from requiring a license for the right of commercial possession of firearms in public interest.

(13) Similarly since the right to keep and bears arms is anyways a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution, and Parliament lacks any competence to bring non commercial possession of firearms under licensing, that is exactly there is provision under Section 42 of Arms Act 1959 to conduct a census within the four walls of Census Act 1948. Otherwise(if all firearms can only be possessed under licenses and exemption certificates, like those for Coorgs) the question of conducting census does not arise.

(14) This view(lack of States competence to tax or license non commercial possession) is further confirmed by combined reading of Section 45(c) of Arms Act 1959, Rule 2(24), Rules 9(4)(5)(6), Rule 57 of Explosives Rules 2008 are not a result of some mistake of drafter or loophole that slipped into the law. They have been purposefully put in because it clearly means since the right to keep and bears arms is anyways a fundamental right protected by Articles 13, 14, 17, 19(1)(b), 21, 25(1), Explanation I in Article 25, 26, 27, 29(1) and 300A of the Constitution read together, and thus Parliament lacks any competence to bring non commercial/ private possession of firearms under licensing, the same is flowing into the Section 45(c) of Arms Act 1959, Rule 2(24), Rules 9(4)(5)(6), Rule 57 of Explosives Rules 2008. In other words the combined reading of Section 45(c) of Arms Act 1959, Rule 2(24), Rules 9(4)(5)(6), Rule 57 of Explosives Rules 2008 is a very brief manifestation of non commercial/ private fundamental right to possession of firearms without licensing. The enhanced protection to citizens flowing from Article 19(1)(b) in comparison to persons is also embedded in them.

Following is what Section 45(c) of Arms Act 1959 says:

"45. Act not to apply in certain cases.

Nothing in this Act shall apply to-- c) any weapon of an obsolete pattern or of antiquarian value or in disrepair which is not capable of being used as a Firearm either or without repair;"

It means that the Arms Act 1959 does not apply, if the weapon falls in any one or more of the following three categories:

1) any weapon of an obsolete pattern

Or

2) of antiquarian value

Or

3) in disrepair which is not capable of being used as a Firearm either or without repair;

As a corollary to the above, one may manufacture, sell, buy or possess matchlocks, flintlocks or similar firearms of "obsolete pattern" without any license under the Arms Act 1959. The cap and ball black powder revolver would also fall in the category of "any weapon of an obsolete pattern".

Rule (9)(6) of Explosives Rules 2008 says:

"Rule 9. No licence needed in certain cases.— Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 7, no licence shall be necessary for the following cases, namely :—

(6) possession by any person for his own private use and not for sale of gunpowder not exceeding five kilograms and fifty metres of safety fuse in any State other than Bihar, Kerala, Tamilnadu and West Bengal and of small arm nitro-compound not exceeding five kilograms except in the State of Kerala;" So one may legally possess without license under the Explosives Rules 2008, gunpowder and small arm nitro-compound each not exceeding five kilograms.

Going by the Section 45(c) of Arms Act 1959 and Rule (9)(6) of Explosives Rules 2008, one can legally possess without license, weapon/s of obsolete pattern along with gunpowder and small arm nitro-compound each not exceeding five kilograms for target practice, shooting sports as well as self defence.

For deciding if a weapon is of an antiquarian value, The Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972(available at http://asi.nic.in/pdf_data/8.pdf ) defines what is an antiquity. Any weapon that is not less than one hundred years is an antiquity and thus not require license, since it is not covered under Arms Act 1959 due to Section 45(c). You have to contact the nearest office of Archaeological Survey of India to register it as antique under The Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972.

(15) Article 358(1) makes it clear that State is clearly incompetent to derogate or violate the human right of self or private defense or it's most effective and modern means directly or indirectly under any color or pretext even under conditions of emergency. This view is further confirmed by Article 359(1)that even under conditions of emergency, State is clearly incompetent to derogate or violate the human right of self or private defense or it's most effective and modern means flowing from Article 21, directly or indirectly under any color or pretext, even under conditions of emergency. Article 359(1) also clarifies that even the other rights under Part III cannot be suspended, only the remedial enforcement of such rights may be temporarily suspended.

(16) The Indian Constitution and the American Constitution is based on British Common Law. Part III of Indian Constitution has been lifted from US Bill of Rights. US Supreme Court in DeShaney vs Winnebago County, 1989 and in many more judgments, has repeatedly emphasized that "the Constitution does not impose a duty on state and local governments to protect the citizens from criminal harm". Similarly the Indian Constitution does not impose a duty on State or Central government to protect from criminal harm, that is why citizens cannot claim compensation of failure of State duty to protect for suffering from violent crime. Following may also be read http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts ... 182966.asp

The Indian State(police etc.) protects the law(the public at large) under public duty doctrine and not individuals. Under public duty doctrine, the police exists to patrol the streets and to apprehend criminals after the crime is committed and do not exist to protect individuals. That is why the Indian police is not criminally liable of neglecting duty of protecting individuals. That is why, the State through it's Parliament has officially acknowledged, on behalf of the Constitution, that it is not always possible or sufficient to provide security by government in the Section 2(f) of Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005. That is why it says the following:

"private security" means security provided by a person, other than a public servant, to protect or guard any person or property or both and includes provision of armoured car service;"

Section 2(f) is saying the above because the "private security" also includes the inherent right to private security provided by person to himself, his family and society. The right of "private defense" as mentioned from Sections 96 to 106 IPC is also a part of the right of "private security".

Similarly, the Section 2(g) of Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 tells what is a private security agency. It says the following:

"private security agency" means a person or body of persons other than a government agency, department or organisation engaged in the business of providing private security services including training to private security guards or their supervisor or providing private security guards to any industrial or business undertaking or a company or any other person or property;"

Section 2(g) is saying the above because the private security agency includes the inherent right to free agency in every person to provide private security to himself, his family and society.

Similarly the Section 2(h) of Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 tells what is a private security guard. It says the following:

"private security guard" means a person providing private security with or without arms to another person or property or both and includes a supervisor;"

Section 2(h) is saying the above because every person has inherent right be an armed private security guard to himself, his family and society.

(17) Nine judge Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court of India, civil original jurisdiction, Writ Petition (civil) No 494 Of 2012, Justice K S Puttaswamy (retd.), and Anr. ..petitioners Vs. Union Of India And Ors. ..respondents, has agreed that right to personal security inter alia the right to keep and bear arms is a human right. The relevant extract is quoted below:

"91. In Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v. S.S. Shukla, (1976) 2 SCC 521, a Constitution Bench of this Court arrived at the conclusion (by majority) that Article 21 is the sole repository of all rights to life and personal liberty, and, when suspended, takes away those rights altogether.

A remarkable dissent was that of Khanna,J. 12

The learned Judge held: [.............]Many modern Constitutions incorporate certain fundamental rights, including the one relating to personal freedom.

According to Blackstone, the absolute rights of Englishmen were the rights of personal security, personal liberty and private property . The American Declaration of Independence (1776) states that all men are created equal, and among their inalienable rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Second Amendment to the US Constitution refers inter alia to security of person, [..............]

92. According to us this is a correct enunciation of the law for the following reasons:

(i) It is clear that the international covenants and declarations to which India was a party, namely, the 1948 Declaration and the 1966 Covenant both spoke of the right to life and liberty as being “inalienable”. Given the fact that this has to be read as being part of Article 21 by virtue of the judgments referred to supra, it is clear that Article 21 would, therefore, not be the sole repository of these human rights but only reflect the fact that they were “inalienable”; that they inhere in every human being by virtue of the person being a human being;

(ii) Secondly, developments after this judgment have also made it clear that the majority judgments are no longer good law and that Khanna, J.’s dissent is the correct version of the law. Section 2(1)(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 recognises that the right to life, liberty, equality and dignity referable to international covenants and enforceable by Courts in India are “human rights”. And international covenants expressly state that these rights are ‘inalienable’ as they inhere in persons because they are human beings. In I.R. Coelho (supra), this Court noticed in paragraph 29 that, “The decision in ADM Jabalpur, (1976) 2 SCC 521, about the restrictive reading of the right to life and liberty stood impliedly overruled by various subsequent decisions.”, and expressly held that these rights are natural rights that inhere in human beings thus:-[................]"

In the above judgment, the nine judge Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court has clearly confirmed and laid down the law that the right to personal security, personal liberty and private property are inalienable human rights. The gun provides personal security and is also a private property. And the Article 141 of the Constitution clearly says the following:

"The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India."

Questions to the forum for discussion and views - Self defense and by extension right to keep and bear arms is a natural human right. This right is embedded in various Articles of the Constitution. I don't think there is any controversy about this fact. That is why Articles 19(1)(b) and Explanation I in Article 25 are clearly acknowledging this inherent right. That is why when read with Article 14, the State is also enjoying this right to keep and bear arms. Parliament has the competence to regulate the "activity" related to these rights for compelling State interest. Reasonable restrictions on right to keep and bear arms are already there in the form of Sections 7, 8 and 9 of Arms Act 1959. Arms Act 1959 has been enacted by Parliament to give effect to this right to keep and bear arms by following Article 35 of the Constitution. But does Parliament have competence to reduce non commercial aspect/ activity of these rights to subject of licensing and taxation? Articles 25 and 27 are clearly telling non commercial aspects of rights cannot be taxed by license or by without licensing. Licensing authorities have been created from powers under Article 307 read with Article 265 to regulate “trade, commerce and intercourse”. Thus they lack jurisdiction to license or tax anything that is not within realm of “trade, commerce and intercourse”. Therefore I am unable to see any Parliamentary competence to reduce non commercial aspects of this right like personal or private possession of firearms to be the subject of license or tax under license.

I re-frame the question, when the Constitution is clearly saying the State lacks jurisdiction on non commercial activity related with the rights, then how can non commercial/ private/ personal activity of possession etc. of firearm be under taxation and licensing? If you note, various provisions of Arms Act 1959 and Explosives Rules 2008 have also acknowledged this lack of jurisdiction of State. Such taxation and licensing of a right is clearly against the Constitution. If not, then from where is the State getting competence or jurisdiction for taxation and licensing of non commercial/ private/ personal activity related to rights?

The links mentioned in another post can also be of interest to you, click here

A great article.However, the enforcers don't have such detailed knowledge or understanding of law and they follow their own understanding which is established by their peers. The most they will say is get a court order or certified copy of the judgement and then too they will fail to acknowledge it except for the individual who has presented it, that too with their own understanding of order or the judgement.Solutions, in my opinion, is to persuade the parliament to enact a more clear law on the issue. The courts cannot issue a mandamus to the parliament or if the supreme court interprets the existing law to give a clearer picture, recognizing and upholding such rights along with strict compliance.